wherein I contemplate the NARAL endorsement and the anger of Clinton's feminist supporters

Yesterday, I happened to catch a great diary by notksanymore about the fact that NARAL endorsed Senator Obama, and as a result, was receiving some harsh criticism from many of that fine organization's supporters.

So, I took a peek.  YIKES.   The vitriol came fast and furious.   Clearly, though, many Obama supporters had been alerted by that diary, and the later comments became more balanced.   Still, I estimate that overall, probably more than 2/3s of the commenters were extremely pissed off, and most of them threatened to never support NARAL financially again.

I left a message of thanks and solidarity with NARAL, and then hit the "donate" button (and I urge you to do so, too - they could use some love right now).
So, I got to thinking about the anger and vitriol, and something dawned on me.  

I'm a Gen Xer, but right on the Baby-Boomer cusp.  I'm a woman and a feminist, raised by feminists, and have always been staunchly pro-choice, although my feelings about abortion have changed over my adult life (probably due to my own pregnancies).

I have also owned up to (just yesterday, actually, on this very site) the fact that I have, upon occasion, voted solely on the basis of gender.   You know those elections - you studied up on the propositions and the candidates, but there's always some obscure race you didn't prepare for, and you have to choose six out of ten candidates or something. To avoid a completely random choice, I'll admit that, yeah, I've picked the women first.  It's funny - when I think about it, I probably know more conservative women than men... yet there I would be, voting solely by gender.  I had no idea if the people in question would represent me better or not... it's just giving a sister a fighting chance.

So, here's the rub:  my actions assert that gender is a valid reason to support a candidate... unless it's a male candidate.  Then, it's sexist to support him just because he's male.  Yeah, I see the reverse discrimination here.  [I defend myself with the fact that I have always felt guilty anytime I've voted without being fully informed on a race or issue.]

::

It dawned on me that the reason these particular Clinton supporters are PISSED OFF at NARAL is that they've finally got a strong, wealthy, well-positioned, serious female candidate for President, and she's not winning the nomination, and they can't for the life of them understand WHY every woman in America isn't taking to the streets for her.   OK, so WHY isn't Senator Clinton winning?  

I believe the gap is mainly one of generation.   Many feminists my age and younger take female empowerment just a little bit for granted.  The hardest part of the struggle was over by the time we were aware of it, and we've enjoyed the fruits of growing up knowing that, in theory, there were no limits.  The dream of a female President is not the stuff of fantasy - it is a certain future for us.  Because we haven't had to face sexism as severe or as ubiquitous as our mothers and aunts and grandmothers did, we have the luxury of seeing past gender... or at least seeing the pros and cons of candidates without gender coming into the equation in any big way.  

Now, "generation gap" doesn't tell the whole story - certainly there are women of my mother's generation who are staunch Obama supporters (I think my mom would have been one of them).  And there are feminist women far younger than me who are diehard Clinton supporters.   But I think, by and large, the demographics support my theory.

::

Speaking just for me, the story is this:  I had big reservations about Senator Clinton before I knew anything much about Obama.   The two biggies for me were her Iraq vote and what I believe is her unelectibility (due to her inherent disapproval rating): ever since the Clinton administration, her name has made conservatives' heads explode.  I can't sit and watch my party lose out AGAIN this time around - I just can't.  I knew in my heart that if she were the nominee, there would be a very good chance the "anti-Hillary" vote would put virtually any GOP candidate in the White House.

Then, along came Obama.  I thought he was too young - that he should wait until 2012 or 2016, but he jumped in.  The New Hampshire speech put me over.  I'm not a worshiper, in that I am resistant to voting for people I find overly charismatic or attractive (they make me suspicious, frankly).  But he's got it all - a great resume, a great platform, and great people-skills.   No, he doesn't possess ovaries, but I'll take that if it means no more Bush-like CEO's of our nation.

::

So, for the Baby-boomer (and older) feminists who feel pissed off, I extend an olive branch.  I understand and sympathize with your feelings.  Please know that the women of the generations behind you are still feminists, but because y'all did such a fine job raising us, we aren't so hungry for that first "Madame President"  that it has caused us to ignore the electoral and political reality around us.  We understand your need, and we hope you can understand ours.

It's easier for us: we've got time, and we'll see a woman there.  We hope you'll be here to help.